Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Access
  • Open access
  • Cited by 49
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Bas, Adeline Jacob, Céline Hay, Julien Pioch, Sylvain and Thorin, Sébastien 2016. Improving marine biodiversity offsetting: A proposed methodology for better assessing losses and gains. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 175, p. 46.

    Bayraktarov, Elisa Saunders, Megan I. Abdullah, Sabah Mills, Morena Beher, Jutta Possingham, Hugh P. Mumby, Peter J. and Lovelock, Catherine E. 2016. The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecological Applications, Vol. 26, Issue. 4, p. 1055.

    Bull, J. W. and Maron, M. 2016. How humans drive speciation as well as extinction. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 283, Issue. 1833, p. 20160600.

    Bull, Joseph W. Gordon, Ascelin Watson, James E. M. Maron, Martine and Carvalho, Silvia 2016. Seeking convergence on the key concepts in ‘no net loss’ policy. Journal of Applied Ecology,

    Cramer, Viki A. Dunlop, Judy Davis, Rob Ellis, Ryan Barnett, Belinda Cook, Annette Morris, Keith and van Leeuwen, Stephen 2016. Research priorities for the northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Australian Mammalogy, Vol. 38, Issue. 2, p. 135.

    Cramer, Viki A. Armstrong, Kyle N. Bullen, Robert D. Ellis, Ryan Gibson, Lesley A. McKenzie, N. L. O'Connell, Morgan Spate, Andy and van Leeuwen, Stephen 2016. Research priorities for the Pilbara leaf-nosed bat (Rhinonicteris aurantia Pilbara form). Australian Mammalogy, Vol. 38, Issue. 2, p. 149.

    Ferguson, Ian Levetan, Laura Crossman, Neville and Bennett, Lauren 2016. Financial Mechanisms to Improve the Supply of Ecosystem Services from Privately-Owned Australian Native Forests. Forests, Vol. 7, Issue. 2, p. 34.

    Hardy, Mathew J. Fitzsimons, James A. Bekessy, Sarah A. and Gordon, Ascelin 2016. Exploring the Permanence of Conservation Covenants. Conservation Letters,

    Jacob, Céline Vaissiere, Anne-Charlotte Bas, Adeline and Calvet, Coralie 2016. Investigating the inclusion of ecosystem services in biodiversity offsetting. Ecosystem Services, Vol. 21, p. 92.

    Jacob, Céline Pioch, Sylvain and Thorin, Sébastien 2016. The effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy in environmental impact studies on marine ecosystems: A case study in France. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 60, p. 83.

    Johnston, Teagan R. Stock, William D. and Mawson, Peter R. 2016. Foraging by Carnaby’s Black-Cockatoo in Banksia woodland on the Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia. Emu, Vol. 116, Issue. 3, p. 284.

    Maron, Martine Ives, Christopher D. Kujala, Heini Bull, Joseph W. Maseyk, Fleur J. F. Bekessy, Sarah Gordon, Ascelin Watson, James E.M. Lentini, Pia E. Gibbons, Philip Possingham, Hugh P. Hobbs, Richard J. Keith, David A. Wintle, Brendan A. and Evans, Megan C. 2016. Taming a Wicked Problem: Resolving Controversies in Biodiversity Offsetting. BioScience, Vol. 66, Issue. 6, p. 489.

    Nunes, Sâmia Gardner, Toby Barlow, Jos Martins, Heron Salomão, Rodney Monteiro, Dyeden and Souza, Carlos 2016. Compensating for past deforestation: Assessing the legal forest surplus and deficit of the state of Pará, eastern Amazonia. Land Use Policy, Vol. 57, p. 749.

    Apostolopoulou, Evangelia and Adams, William M. 2015. Neoliberal Capitalism and Conservation in the Post-crisis Era: The Dialectics of “Green” and “Un-green” Grabbing in Greece and the UK. Antipode, Vol. 47, Issue. 1, p. 15.

    Bidaud, Cecile Hrabanski, Marie and Meral, Philippe 2015. Voluntary biodiversity offset strategies in Madagascar. Ecosystem Services, Vol. 15, p. 181.

    Boisvert, Valérie 2015. Conservation banking mechanisms and the economization of nature: An institutional analysis. Ecosystem Services, Vol. 15, p. 134.

    Bull, J.W. and Brownlie, S. 2015. The transition from No Net Loss to a Net Gain of biodiversity is far from trivial. Oryx, p. 1.

    Bull, J.W. Singh, N.J. Suttle, K.B. Bykova, E.A. and Milner-Gulland, E.J. 2015. Creating a frame of reference for conservation interventions. Land Use Policy, Vol. 49, p. 273.

    Bull, J.W. Hardy, M.J. Moilanen, A. and Gordon, A. 2015. Categories of flexibility in biodiversity offsetting, and their implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, Vol. 192, p. 522.

    Calvet, Coralie Napoléone, Claude and Salles, Jean-Michel 2015. The Biodiversity Offsetting Dilemma: Between Economic Rationales and Ecological Dynamics. Sustainability, Vol. 7, Issue. 6, p. 7357.


Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice

  • Joseph W. Bull (a1), K. Blake Suttle (a2), Ascelin Gordon (a3), Navinder J. Singh (a4) and E. J. Milner-Gulland (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 14 May 2013

Biodiversity offsets are an increasingly popular yet controversial tool in conservation. Their popularity lies in their potential to meet the objectives of biodiversity conservation and of economic development in tandem; the controversy lies in the need to accept ecological losses in return for uncertain gains. The offsetting approach is being widely adopted, even though its methodologies and the overriding conceptual framework are still under development. This review of biodiversity offsetting evaluates implementation to date and synthesizes outstanding theoretical and practical problems. We begin by outlining the criteria that make biodiversity offsets unique and then explore the suite of conceptual challenges arising from these criteria and indicate potential design solutions. We find that biodiversity offset schemes have been inconsistent in meeting conservation objectives because of the challenge of ensuring full compliance and effective monitoring and because of conceptual flaws in the approach itself. Evidence to support this conclusion comes primarily from developed countries, although offsets are increasingly being implemented in the developing world. We are at a critical stage: biodiversity offsets risk becoming responses to immediate development and conservation needs without an overriding conceptual framework to provide guidance and evaluation criteria. We clarify the meaning of the term biodiversity offset and propose a framework that integrates the consideration of theoretical and practical challenges in the offset process. We also propose a research agenda for specific topics around metrics, baselines and uncertainty.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice
      Available formats
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice
      Available formats
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice
      Available formats
The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution licence <>.
Corresponding author
(Corresponding author) E-mail
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

S. Bekessy , B. Wintle , D.B. Lindenmayer , M. McCarthy , M. Colyvan & M. Burgman (2010) The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank. Conservation Letters, 3, 151158.

P.H. Brown & C.L. Lant (1999) The effect of wetland mitigation banking on the achievement of no-net-loss. Environmental Management, 23, 333345.

D.J. Bruggeman , M.L. Jones , F. Lupi & K.T. Scribner (2005) Landscape Equivalency Analysis: methodology for estimating spatially explicit biodiversity credits. Environmental Management, 36, 518534.

D.J. Bruggeman , M.L. Jones , K.T. Scribner & F. Lupi (2009) Relating tradable credits for biodiversity to sustainability criteria in a dynamic landscape. Landscape Ecology, 24, 775790.

S. Burgin (2008) BioBanking: an environmental scientist's view of the role of biodiversity banking offsets in conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 807816.

M.W. Cadotte , K. Carscadden & N. Mirotchnick (2011) Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 10791087.

S.R. Confer & W. Niering (1992) Comparison of created and natural freshwater emergent wetlands in Connecticut (USA). Wetlands Ecology and Management, 2, 143156.

M. Drechsler & F. Hartig (2011) Conserving biodiversity with tradable permits under changing conservation costs and habitat restoration time lags. Ecological Economics, 70, 533541.

M. Drechsler & F. Wätzold (2009) Applying tradable permits to biodiversity conservation: effects of space-dependent conservation benefits and cost heterogeneity on habitat allocation. Ecological Economics, 68, 10831092.

R. Duncan & P. Hay (2007) A question of balance in Integrated Impact Assessment: negotiating away the environmental interest in Australia's Basslink Project. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 9, 273297.

R.W. Dunford , T.C. Ginn & W.H. Desvousges (2004) The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments. Ecological Economics, 48, 4970.

P.J. Ferraro & S.K. Pattanayak (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology, 4(4), e105.

J. Fox & A. Nino-Murcia (2005) Status of species conservation banking in the United States. Conservation Biology, 19, 9961007.

P. Gibbons & D.B. Lindenmayer (2007) Offsets for land clearing: no net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Ecological Management and Restoration, 8, 2631.

E.J. Gorrod & D.A. Keith (2009) Observer variation in field assessments of vegetation condition: implications for biodiversity conservation. Ecological Management and Restoration, 10, 3140.

D.J. Harper & J.T. Quigly (2005) No net loss of fish habitat: a review and analysis of habitat compensation in Canada. Environmental Management, 36, 343355.

C.J. Humphries , P.H. Williams & R.I. Vane-Wright (1995) Measuring biodiversity value for conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26, 93111.

J.M. Kiesecker , H. Copeland , A. Pocewicz , N. Nibbelink , B. McKenney , J. Dahlke (2009) A framework for implementing biodiversity offsets: selecting sites and determining scale. BioScience, 59, 7784.

J.M. Kiesecker , H. Copeland , A. Pocewicz & B. McKenney (2010) Development by design: blending landscape level planning with the mitigation hierarchy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 261266.

L. Kramer (2009) The European Commission's Opinions under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive. Journal of Environmental Law, 21, 5985.

W.T. Langford , A. Gordon & L. Bastin (2009) When do conservation planning methods deliver? Quantifying the consequences of uncertainty. Ecological Informatics, 4, 123135.

J. Lubchenco (1997) Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science, 279, 491497.

M. Maron , R.J. Hobbs , A. Moilanen , J.W. Matthews , K. Christie , T.A. Gardner (2012) Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biological Conservation, 155, 141148.

J.W. Matthews & A.G. Endress (2008) Performance criteria, compliance success, and vegetation development in compensatory mitigation wetlands. Environmental Management, 41, 130141.

M.A. McCarthy , K.M. Parris , R. van der Ree , M.J. McDonnell , M.A. Burgman , N.S.G. Williams (2004) The habitat hectares approach to vegetation assessment: an evaluation and suggestions for improvement. Ecological Management & Restoration, 5, 2427.

B. McKenney & J.M. Kiesecker (2010) Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environmental Management, 45, 165–76.

W.J. Mitsch & R.F. Wilson (1996) Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with know-how, time, and self-design. Ecological Applications, 6, 7783.

A. Moilanen , A.J.A. van Teeffelen , Y. Ben-Haim & S. Ferrier (2009) How much compensation is enough? A framework for incorporating uncertainty and time discounting when calculating offset ratios for impacted habitat. Restoration Ecology, 17, 470478.

D. Moreno-Mateos , M.E. Power , F.A. Comin & R. Yockteng (2012) Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biology, 10(1), e1001247.

R.K.A. Morris , I. Alonso , R.G. Jefferson & K.J. Kirby (2006) The creation of compensatory habitat—can it secure sustainable development? Journal for Nature Conservation, 14, 106116.

R. Naidoo , A. Balmford , R. Costanza , B. Fisher , R.E. Green , B. Lehner (2008) Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105, 94959500.

E. Nelson , G. Mendoza , J. Regetz , S. Polasky , H. Tallis , D.R. Cameron (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 411.

D. Norton (2009) Biodiversity offsets: two New Zealand case studies and an assessment framework. Environmental Management, 43, 698706.

F.M. Pouzols , M.A. Burgman & A. Moilanen (2012) Methods for allocation of habitat management, maintenance, restoration and offsetting, when conservation actions have uncertain consequences. Biological Conservation, 153, 4150.

A. Purvis & A. Hector (2000) Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature, 405, 212219.

F. Quetier & S. Lavorel (2012) Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: key issues and solutions. Biological Conservation, 144, 29912999.

J.T. Quigley & D.J. Harper (2006a) Compliance with Canada's Fisheries Act: a field audit of habitat compensation projects. Environmental Management, 37, 336350.

J.T. Quigley & D.J. Harper (2006b) Effectiveness of fish habitat compensation in Canada in achieving no net loss. Environmental Management, 37, 351366.

M.S. Race & M.S. Fonseca (1996) Fixing compensatory mitigation: what will it take? Ecological Applications, 6, 94101.

H.M. Regan , M. Colyvan & M. Burgman (2002) A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecological Applications, 12, 618628.

C.D. Rubec & A.R. Hanson (2008) Wetland mitigation and compensation: Canadian experience. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17, 314.

J. Salzman & J.B. Ruhl (2000) Currencies and the commodification of environmental law. Stanford Law Review, 53, 607694.

S. Walker , A.L. Brower , R.T. Stephens & W.G. Lee (2009) Why bartering biodiversity fails. Conservation Letters, 2, 149157.

T.H. Westerweller & J.J. Price (2006) Crossing the divide. Power Engineer, 20, 4245.

C. Wilcox & C.J. Donlan (2007) Compensatory mitigation as a solution to fisheries bycatch–biodiversity conservation conflicts. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5, 325331.

S. Wissel & F. Wätzold (2010) A conceptual analysis of the application of tradable permits to biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 24, 404411.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

  • ISSN: 0030-6053
  • EISSN: 1365-3008
  • URL: /core/journals/oryx
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *